Hibiscus Teach · Vids · The Wire

The Rules of the Game

Explain a hierarchy through analogy, compare registers and question what a persuasive comparison leaves out.

C1 / supported B2+ · Adults60 minutes with a tutor

Created by Denis M., British English teacher.

Related lessons

C1Comparisons 3: Linked Changes and Precise Limits
C1Peaky Blinders

Content note: Adults only: strong language, criminal organisations, drug dealing and references to violence. Discuss the drama critically; all student role-plays use lawful, ordinary organisations.

Warm-up: Compare an ordinary organisation to a game. What does the comparison explain: and what might it hide?

Learn the words, watch, then answer the quiz. Practise the phrases and speaking prompts. On your own, replay only what you need; with a tutor, develop each response together.

Vocabulary helps you discuss the scene; not every entry is spoken in the clip.

A lesson beyond chess

D’Angelo explains chess by comparing the pieces with roles familiar to his listeners.

First watch: What does the game suggest about power and opportunity?

New vocabulary

analogy: A comparison used to explain an idea through something more familiar.The teacher used a theatre analogy to explain how the team worked.
hierarchy: A system in which people or roles are ranked at different levels.The diagram shows the hierarchy, but not every informal relationship.
expendable: Treated as something that can be sacrificed or replaced.A good team should not make its newest members feel expendable.
rise through the ranks: Move into positions of greater responsibility or status.She rose through the ranks after starting in an entry-level role.

Original source ↗

Watch and check · 6 questions

Choose one answer per question. The last two questions practise original language.

About the clip: picture and dialogue1. What is D’Angelo teaching the others?

A. How to calculate the rent on a flat.B. How to read a transport timetable.C. How chess pieces work.

About the clip: listening2. How does he make the explanation familiar to the listeners?

A. He compares the pieces with roles in their organisation.B. He avoids every comparison with their experience.C. He asks them to memorise only the colours of the squares.

About the clip: listening3. What idea does the king help illustrate in the analogy?

A. A figure with no importance to the outcome.B. A powerful figure whom others are organised to protect.C. A worker who can simply be removed without consequence.

About the clip: listening4. What possibility interests the listeners when pawns are discussed?

A. Whether a pawn can change the board into a different game instantly.B. Whether the players can eliminate every rule before starting.C. Whether a pawn can advance into a more powerful role.

Original language practice (not a quote)5. Which explanation uses an analogy clearly?

A. The editor is like a conductor: they coordinate different contributions into one performance.B. The editor is a conductor, so they must conduct an orchestra every evening.C. The editor is unlike everything, so no explanation is possible.

Original language practice (not a quote)6. What is a useful follow-up when someone explains an organisation through a game?

A. Which people should lose simply because the game needs losers?B. Where does the comparison stop being accurate?C. Can we replace every detail about the organisation with the game’s rules?

Answer key and explanations

C. How chess pieces work. He uses the board as the starting point for a wider comparison.
A. He compares the pieces with roles in their organisation. The analogy links an unfamiliar game with a hierarchy they recognise.
B. A powerful figure whom others are organised to protect. The king’s place in the game supports the comparison with a protected leader.
C. Whether a pawn can advance into a more powerful role. Their attention turns to the possibility of moving beyond a low position.
A. The editor is like a conductor: they coordinate different contributions into one performance. The comparison explains a shared function and identifies what is being compared.
B. Where does the comparison stop being accurate? An analogy can help while still leaving important differences.

1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC1 · Two scaled comparisons with different measures

“they buying twice as much and only getting half as high”

Clip 1, quotation excerpt

Twice as much compares the quantity bought; half as high compares the effect. In standard written English the spoken they buying would be they are buying. The two scales do not by themselves establish price.

Which conclusion preserves the two measures without adding an unstated financial assumption?

The quantity bought has doubled while the effect is halved; the words alone do not specify the price paid.The price paid has doubled while the quantity bought is halved.The quantity and effect have both doubled, proving that the price per unit is unchanged.

Grammar support

C1Comparisons 3: Linked Changes and Precise Limits

Useful phrases

Original phrases to practise, not programme quotations.

The comparison works because both systems have different levels of power.
Explain the basis of an analogy.

Where does that analogy stop being useful?
Examine the limits of a comparison.

Speaking · 3 prompts

Develop your answer with a reason or example. On your own, answer aloud before opening a model.

What does the chess comparison explain clearly, and what might it make seem inevitable?

One possible answer

It makes the unequal roles easy to picture. However, it may also make the hierarchy feel as fixed as the rules of a game, when real organisations involve choices and responsibilities that a chessboard cannot represent.
Can a chance to rise through the ranks coexist with an unfair structure? Discuss a fictional club or business.

One possible answer

A club might allow a few people to advance while giving most new members little support. The existence of promotion would not by itself show that the process is fair or that everyone has a realistic opportunity.
Explain a lawful organisation using a theatre, orchestra or sports analogy. Your partner identifies one useful similarity and one important limitation. Revise the comparison.

One possible answer

A: Our team is like an orchestra: different roles must coordinate. B: That helps explain timing, but the conductor comparison makes our manager sound like the only decision-maker. A: Fair point. In our team, responsibility is more distributed.

Changing the language of the meeting

Stringer chairs a meeting about a change in the organisation’s circumstances.

First watch: Does changing the language change the activity itself?

New vocabulary

agenda: The matters a meeting intends to discuss.A short agenda can help everyone understand the purpose of a meeting.
reframe: Present an issue from a different perspective.She reframed the disagreement as a question about priorities.
priority: Something treated as more important than other things.Our immediate priority is to keep the service reliable.
underlying: Present beneath the most visible description or appearance.The polished presentation did not resolve the underlying problem.

Original source ↗

Watch and check · 6 questions

Choose one answer per question. The last two questions practise original language.

About the clip: picture and dialogue1. What kind of interaction is Stringer trying to organise?

A. A structured, business-style meeting.B. An informal chess lesson identical to the first clip.C. A public school’s sports day.

About the clip: listening2. What kind of response to the loss of territory does Bodie suggest?

A. Closing every operation and leaving immediately.B. Taking new territory by force.C. Asking D’Angelo to explain the chess rules again.

About the clip: listening3. What change in thinking does Stringer urge?

A. Treating every financial question as irrelevant.B. Replacing all discussion with a contest over who can shout loudest.C. Thinking in commercial rather than purely territorial terms.

About the clip: interpretation4. What contrast gives the scene its irony?

A. Formal business language is applied to an illegal organisation.B. Everyone in the room is an ordinary schoolteacher.C. The meeting is entirely silent despite having an agenda.

Original language practice (not a quote)5. Which sentence reframes a lawful workplace disagreement constructively?

A. The problem will disappear if we give it a fashionable name.B. Rather than compete for credit, could we agree how to divide the work?C. My priority is that nobody else should speak.

Original language practice (not a quote)6. What should a listener check when formal language makes an activity sound respectable?

A. Whether the speaker has used enough long words.B. Whether the same message can be printed in a larger font.C. Whether the description matches the underlying actions.

Answer key and explanations

A. A structured, business-style meeting. His approach borrows the form and language of a business discussion.
B. Taking new territory by force. The suggestion treats the problem as a territorial contest.
C. Thinking in commercial rather than purely territorial terms. He tries to reframe the organisation’s priorities in business language.
A. Formal business language is applied to an illegal organisation. The polished form contrasts with the underlying activity.
B. Rather than compete for credit, could we agree how to divide the work? It changes the focus from status to a practical arrangement.
C. Whether the description matches the underlying actions. Register and presentation do not by themselves establish what is actually happening.

1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC1 · Two cleft focuses in a causal chain

“it's the fight for the territory that be bringing the bodies and the bodies that bring the police”

Clip 2, quotation excerpt

The dialectal quote uses two focused noun phrases. The first identifies what produces deaths; the second, with it is understood, identifies what brings police attention. Keep the chain’s direction.

Which standard-English expansion preserves both cleft focuses and their different consequences?

It is the police that produce the deaths, and it is the deaths that create the territory.It is the territory itself that brings the police, independently of conflict or deaths.It is the fight for territory that produces the deaths, and it is the deaths that bring the police.

Grammar support

C1Cleft Sentences 1: Put the Focus Where It Belongs

Useful phrases

Original phrases to practise, not programme quotations.

Could we reframe this as a question about priorities?
Shift a disagreement towards a decision criterion.

The language sounds professional, but what is actually happening?
Distinguish presentation from substance.

Speaking · 3 prompts

Develop your answer with a reason or example. On your own, answer aloud before opening a model.

What changes when Stringer uses business language, and what does not?

One possible answer

It changes how the group is asked to discuss priorities. It does not make the underlying activity lawful or remove its consequences. The scene lets us notice how register can alter an impression without changing the facts.
Give an example of a harmless euphemism and one that could hide an important workplace problem. Explain the difference.

One possible answer

Calling a short meeting a catch-up is usually harmless. Calling repeated unpaid extra work a flexibility opportunity could hide the effect on staff. I would ask what the phrase means in practical terms.
Chair a meeting for a community arts project with limited room space. Reframe a competition between two groups as a shared scheduling problem. Agree one priority and one concrete arrangement.

One possible answer

Chair: Could we reframe this as a scheduling question rather than a contest? Group A: We need a quiet room for rehearsal. Group B: We need access after work. Chair: Then let us prioritise noise requirements and agree separate time slots.

1–2 minGrammar masteryC1 · What a condition does not guarantee

“Your territory ain't gonna mean shit if your product is weak.”

From this lesson’s clip, quotation excerpt

The open if-clause rules out useful territory when the product is weak. Reversing that condition does not guarantee success.

Which implication is justified without reversing the original condition?

If the territory has real value, the product cannot be weak.If the product is strong, the territory is guaranteed to have real value.If the product is weak, the territory is guaranteed to have real value.

Grammar support

C1–C2Advanced Adverbial Clauses

More practice

Try another lesson with film or television clips.

C1Succession
B2+/C1Sherlock

Finish by improving your response to speaking prompt 3 in Clip B. Use one phrase from the lesson.

Return to Vids